If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Anomalous phenomena is subtle with a small effect size; it does not replicate on-demand. This is also true of experiments in advanced psychics such as in quantum mechanics. There is an additional challenge in that apparitions may me almost entirely mental events. If this is so it is unclear that measurement device could actually reliably capture their presence.

Anomalous Phenomena is Unexplained not ImpossiblePsi is Subtle not AbsoluteAnything is possible, it's all a matter of Probability---------------------

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Anomalous phenomena is subtle with a small effect size; it does not replicate on-demand. This is also true of experiments in advanced psychics such as in quantum mechanics. There is an additional challenge in that apparitions may me almost entirely mental events. If this is so it is unclear that measurement device could actually reliably capture their presence.

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

If ghost don't exist, why can't anyone prove it? Millions of people believe that ghosts do not exist, but none of them can prove it.There is not enough evidence to disprove it in a court of law.

someone once said "the argument from lack of evidence is a lack of argument."

You can not prove the existence of a non- existence that is not even remotely logical.

How is disproving something illogical?

Because if something does not exist it cannot be proven not to exist .How would you do that . here , let me make a claim.There exist leprechauns with flying monkeys sticking out their butts prove they do not exist.You can not , nobody can . Shall we then conclude they exist?

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Very good question. Well, we have what we believe to be evidence, although it's never enough for non-believers it seems. The only way you can fully get a non-believer to believe, is if they experience it themselves. Something you forgot to point out is that we can't prove they don't exist either, so it could go either way.

One bright day in the middle of the night,Two dead boys got up to fight,Back to back they faced each other,Drew their swords and shot each other,A deaf policeman heard the noise,And went to save those two dead boys,If you donít believe itís true,Ask the blind man he saw it too.

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Very good question. Well, we have what we believe to be evidence, although it's never enough for non-believers it seems. The only way you can fully get a non-believer to believe, is if they experience it themselves. Something you forgot to point out is that we can't prove they don't exist either, so it could go either way.

I can not prove Zeus doesn't exist so it could go either way.

Sure it is true as long as someone can not prove something does not exist that it will always be open as to belief .

Of course that also means if it does not exist it can not be proven that it does in the first place nor can it be proven that it does not exist.The evidence you speak of is sort of arbitrary isnít it? In the face of truth anyone will have to admit to any facts whatever they may be.

Before making blanket assertions and issuing challenges, it is usually a good idea to have some knowledge regarding the subject in question.

This usually entails doing some basic research on the subject, and coming to an appreciation of the body of knowledge associated with it.

To do otherwise only serves to make you look like a tedious, annoying fool.

I am acquainted with some parapsychology and the like , man I can create my own EVP's as well as know theories as to how they might be created by nature.I am so sorry if you are annoyed I am sure you would of course be more comfortable with a believer.My opinion . The best investigators , the most credible would be oneís who are skeptic.As I just said in the face of truth with factual undeniable evidence nobody could deny the truth whatever that might be , my beliefs , my disbelief will not change the truth one bit.

There is a huge difference between skeptic and scoftic. Yes, a credible investigator is usually skeptic, but true skeptics are open minded enough to not scoff, to accept when a known explanation cannot resolve a photo, recording, experience or other piece of evidence.

A scoftic will dismiss everything and if they don't accuse someone of outright fraud, they generally disparage the person's mental state and WILL deny any piece of evidence as what it is no matter what. (evidence being that which after much honest review and investigation cannot yet be given a known, natural explanation.)

Being acquainted with some parapsychology does not equal understanding it or having a broad knowledge of it. That's like saying I'm acquainted with some bio-chemistry so I am qualified to pronounce on it.

As for EVPs, how nice that you are able to create your own. Do they indeed match the exact wavelengths of those caught in the field? Or do they just kinda sound like them? There is a difference and there is major research being done on EVPs, particularly in Europe where the research is actually funded by the governments. This research indicates that EVP is not created by the investigator, nor caused by whatever natural theory you would like to apply.

It is not that we 'believers' are uncomfortable with scoftics. It's that we are more than a little fed up with the attitude which really doesn't get anyone anywhere, and ends up making the scoftic look like, well, a horse's behind.

On your original question, I wonder if you truly understand the various levels of acceptable evidence in various types of court cases? True, what is considered evidence of paranormal activity wouldn't cut it in a homicide case, but remember, OJ Simpson was found innocent in a criminal court, but very much guilty in civil court of the same crime. Different types of evidence are allowed in these two kinds of court cases. The question therefore is, if we were to go to court to prove paranormal phenomena real, exactly what type of court case would that be considered? Under which laws would we be operating under?

As a side note, in many cases, the reason 'spirit evidence' is not admissible evidence in general came out of the many Witch trials, in which the accusers would become 'possessed' or tormented by the familiars of the accused witch while on the witness stand, thereby presenting 'evidence' that they were bewitched by the one they were accusing. A cursory study of the Salem Witch Trials will show this, and also point this very fact out.

However, according to Real Estate Law in some US states and in England, it is part of the Seller's Disclosure that the seller MUST reveal if the home in question is haunted (rumours of haunting in the community or otherwise), as well as if someone had died in the home (example, California requires that disclosed if the death occured within the last three years prior). This became part of Real Estate Law after several different cases in the various US States and in England of a buyer sueing the seller for not revealing that said house was haunted (rumoured in the community or otherwise).

Are there natural explanations for some phenomena labeled paranormal? Yes indeed there is. But a deeper than cursory study of the paranormal reveals that much of it does not. Don't peek at a group that proclaims every spot of dust on a picture a ghost, or every faint sound on a tape recording a spirit voice without ever bothering to actually educate themselves and dig deeper and paint the rest of the paranormal community in their colours. It's insulting to us and frankly, to yourself. It drags you out of the label of Skeptic and under the label of Scoftic, and no reasonable, intelligent person wants to be one of those.

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Very good question. Well, we have what we believe to be evidence, although it's never enough for non-believers it seems. The only way you can fully get a non-believer to believe, is if they experience it themselves. Something you forgot to point out is that we can't prove they don't exist either, so it could go either way.

I can not prove Zeus doesn't exist so it could go either way.

Sure it is true as long as someone can not prove something does not exist that it will always be open as to belief .

Of course that also means if it does not exist it can not be proven that it does in the first place nor can it be proven that it does not exist.The evidence you speak of is sort of arbitrary isnít it? In the face of truth anyone will have to admit to any facts whatever they may be.

Wow, as complicated as that was I managed to keep up And you have a very good point. I read a book once with a quote that said something like "For a believer, no evidence is necessary, for a skeptic, no amount of evidence is enough." Although I sort of disagree, I was once a skeptic, and I'm a believer now. I don't think you can jump right to believing, but that's just my opinion.

One bright day in the middle of the night,Two dead boys got up to fight,Back to back they faced each other,Drew their swords and shot each other,A deaf policeman heard the noise,And went to save those two dead boys,If you donít believe itís true,Ask the blind man he saw it too.